Brunell is Bad

[Sean Taylor is God]

It's not hard to hate when your offense becomes completely ineffective. I understand that you want to reward results, but I think you are giving him undo credit.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Dude, name me one QB in the playoffs this year who didn't have a helluva supporting cast? Which, yes, included a very good defense?

Simms, Delhomme, Grossman

[MTK]

The Bucs had a good running game and defense.

The Panthers had Smith and a good defense, and Delhomme is a pretty damn good QB anyway.

The Bears had a running game and defense around Grossman.

[GoSkins!]

I'm not trying to be rude, but you seem to be showing up on the site and posting the same threads that we have discussed here for months. Please show us, the guys that are here every day, some respect by looking through the locker room forum some before you post a "new" thread. Trust me, this one isn't new.

If you don't believe me, find some posts by "offiss".

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

It's not hard to hate when your offense becomes completely ineffective. I understand that you want to reward results, but I think you are giving him undo credit.

Perhaps your criticism of Brunell is also undo.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

It's not hard to hate when your offense becomes completely ineffective. I understand that you want to reward results, but I think you are giving him undo credit.

LOL and you're giving him zero credit.

I'm not giving him all the credit for the 11 wins, but I'm certainly not going to say he played no part in that.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Gibbs seems to have a pretty good handle on QB's, so rather than rehashing this tired argument I'll just defer to his judgement on the matter.

In 2006, we can expect Ramsey will be elsewhere and Al Saunders to have the final say on the QB decision. Joe will offer his input certainly.

I gave Brunell an A- through the SF game but he faded after that. I have him at a C for the year. Although there were other contributing factors, I thought the dropoff had more to do with defenses adjusting to take away Brunell's limited arsenal than anything else.

I can't see Mark doing any better in 2006 than he did finishing 2005. I hope Campbell is the real deal.

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

Simms, Delhomme, Grossman

Simms - I believe Tampa's Defense was OK, let me check the numbers. Ah yes. Number one overall. Add the 1178 yard rookie RB, the 1287 yard WR, and you've got a supporting cast.
Delhomme - Steve Smith is OK, as was the number three overall defense.
Grossman - Chicago had the number two defense, and their RB set a team record for yardage.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

I'm not trying to be rude, but you seem to be showing up on the site and posting the same threads that we have discussed here for months. Please show us, the guys that are here every day, some respect by looking through the locker room forum some before you post a "new" thread. Trust me, this one isn't new.

If you don't believe me, find some posts by "offiss".

You're right. I just started and don't really understand the forum format. I'm really just trying to spark interesting debates but people seem really defensive.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

It was wrong of me to question Brunell's heart and desire to have the ball. I got a little caught up in my rant but I stand by my belief that Brunell is not good. He was able to get the job done, well, but that wasn't my point. I think we could have been more successful had we had a QB with better arm strength and lower risk aversion. While it's true his style reduces INT's it keeps the defense closer to the line and makes it harder for the running game to be productive. When we are down and need to be driven down the field late in the game, Mark Brunell is incapable of leading that charge.

It's a fair statement, our defense bailed out his 3 and outs late in the game many times.

Brunells problem with the long ball is that it has to be premediatated, he doesn't have the arm to check off and then throw deep, the recievers are to far downfield and he has to put to much air under the ball to reach them allowing the defenders to recover. During the year one analists pointed that very thing out, [may have been Aikmen] he said on a couple of particular plays that recievers were open downfield but by the time they broke open and Brunell saw them Brunells arm was incapable of reaching them. Defenses knowing that can tighten their defense closer to the line of scrimmage and make the short passing game as well as the running game more difficult to execute, than if they had to respect the ability of a QB who can flick his wrist and throw a 50 yard strike downfield.

[Sean Taylor is God]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Simms - I believe Tampa's Defense was OK, let me check the numbers. Ah yes. Number one overall. Add the 1178 yard rookie RB, the 1287 yard WR, and you've got a supporting cast.
Delhomme - Steve Smith is OK, as was the number three overall defense.
Grossman - Chicago had the number two defense, and their RB set a team record for yardage.

The one common thread of these three teams is great defense. By supporting cast i meant several players on offense. each team has one guy who excelled except the bucs who we beat, with defense.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

You're right. I just started and don't really understand the forum format. I'm really just trying to spark interesting debates but people seem really defensive.

Everyone here is looking for interesting topics and insight and I understand the newbies are always going to have a little trouble adjusting. You seem to be posting a lot so I guess you just stick out more right now.

Just click the "forum" click on the home page. Then click "locker room". You can look through the existing threads until you find one with the topic you are looking to talk about. Then post your opinion and it will automagically jump to first in line on the homepage! If you don't find your topic, then by all means, post a new thread!

Just for the record, Brunnel had a very good year. My concern is that I don't know if he can reproduce his production next year.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

You're right. I just started and don't really understand the forum format. I'm really just trying to spark interesting debates but people seem really defensive.

Please excuse the hostility but you have to understand we've discussed this very topic ad nauseam... when you're new to a forum try doing a search before posting. Often you'll find we're already discussing your topic.

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by Sean Taylor is God

The one common thread of these three teams is great defense. By supporting cast i meant several players on offense. each team has one guy who excelled except the bucs who we beat, with defense.

To be perfectly fair, the Panthers had 17 rushing TDs, which puts them tied for 2nd in the NFC (behind Alexander the stat-whore and his Seahawks). Injuries to Stephen Davis (how do you not see that coming?) kept him out of a short-yardage role that had him at 12 tds in 10 games, or on pace for 19 TDs all by his lonesome. They also think enopugh of DeShaun Foster to "transition" him, giving them right to match any deal he gets.

As for the Bears, if you're looking for a receiving threat, you would have to filter their statistics through a Kyle Orton filter. The Bears won games where he went 12-26, 6-17, and 2-10. The fact that Muhammed caught 50+ balls from him probably equates to an 80 catch season anywhere else.

STiG, sorry if it seems like I'm loading up on you. I think we agree that this can't be Brunell's team if we want to continue to improve. We likely saw his best stuff last year. However, I'/m not willing to smack his best stuff, even if it wasn't gaudy, seeing as how it got us into the playoffs.

[CrazyCanuck]